Not to mention flat.
I am in fact a WhatsApp user, but I use it reluctantly. It has a history of security issues and in the end it's just a hack on top of XMPP standards. No to mention it is very centralized in nature.
Most of the others I mentioned use standards like XMPP and SIP, which means that you aren't tied to a single vendor or ISP. A jabber.org account can communicate perfectly with a jabme.org account, you just need an XMPP client and set your account. Granted, this sounds like a lot of work for the majority of lazy users, which is why I suggested Kontalk as an alternative. Which does use XMPP without ugly hacks on top of it, and yet uses the same concepts as WhatsApp.
- Tox (soon to be)
- Numerous others
In fact, all of the above are free of charge.
I'm sorry your Ubuntu install I thrashed, young Padawan.
I find it irritating when people fall for WhatsApp's propaganda that they are a "free" SMS replacement. They're not! You need an internet connection to use it just like any other internet messaging application. Newsflash; you pay a subscription fee for internet connections. And mobile internet connections come with quotas.
Granted, if you already pay for a mobile internet connection, IM will nearly always be cheaper than SMS. But that, too, goes for any IM app.
PS: I'm waiting for Kontalk to become usable before recommending it as the alternative to WhatsApp.
I wonder what company you are representing...
No, you are wrong. As I was talking about the iPhone (which has had 330 ppi ever since 2010), I am completely right. You suddenly include a completely different subject and then claim I was wrong. Way to go!
That chart doesn't really mean anything either, not in the least because we're talking about the low end of the spectrum here, which is near the base of that chart where it gets fuzzy. But let's have a look at something a bit more scientific, shall we.
So they basically bragged that they found the perfect pixel density @ 330 ppi... which is even worse.
In reality, they sticked with that pixel density because they have very strict (pixel-based) design constraints for their platform.
....Which proves my point
Perhaps I should have said Apple fans, but I wanted to avoid offending SuperKendall and the AC he was responding to. They were clearly saying that more pixels is bad, in case you missed it.
Well it's what happened with the old 3.5 inch screens, with the awkward 3:2 aspect ratio. Don't forget that the iPhone 5 (with the 4" screen) was not released until march 2013.
This time it's the screen resolution... Apple has always bragged about their high resolution retina displays, and now that they're lacking in that department, all of a sudden high resolution is a bad thing and Apple's retina are the "perfect resolution".
Apple - making significant disadvantages of their iDevices sound like good things (tm).
The old "perfect size / one size fits all" 3.5" display comes to mind...
Sorry, I missed the proper meaning of that 1.8 million figure.
What? 50.000 / 1.800.000 sounds like 3%
But from the perspective of ethics and morality, there is no difference — both are about equally reprehensible.
That's a moralistic fallacy. You could argue that, morally, there is no difference between murder and fraud, and not be wrong. Morality is subjective and my morals are different from yours.